Bava Batra 62b — the Talmud in English

And likewise they were uncertain:

in alternating fashion,

for example, when eight people surrounded his field, two on each side: Reuven and Shimon on the east, Levi and Judah on the north, Issachar and Zebulun on the west, Joseph and Benjamin on the south. And he wrote for him: “His field of Reuven” on the eastern boundary, Levi on the north, Issachar on the west, and Joseph on the south

—what is the law?

Is it to be said that even according to the view that in the form of a gamma he acquired only one diagonal strip, this is because it is customary to sell one strip in his field; but here, it is not customary to sell in alternating fashion—that is, he sells opposite Reuven, whereas opposite Shimon he does not sell; opposite Levi he sells, whereas opposite Judah he does not sell; and likewise with the other directions. Therefore, it must perforce be understood that he sells the entire field, except that he did not wish to trouble himself to mention everyone, and therefore he skipped them in alternating fashion; but he intended to transfer the entire field. Or perhaps they divide the field into four parts, and then divide each part into two parts diagonally, and he sold him only the part opposite the boundary that he mentioned, but not the part opposite that which he did not mention. [See Illustration 10 from “Living Commentary”]

Illustration 10 And we conclude:

the matter remains teyku.

All these problems remained unresolved and were not resolved.

And now the Gemara brings three opinions—that of Rav, Shmuel, and Rav Asi—concerning one who sold a field to his fellow and did not specify the boundary of one of the field’s four sides:

He specified a boundary for him,

he wrote for him and marked in the deed of sale of the field only three of the four boundaries surrounding the field, the location of

the first boundary, the second boundary, and the third boundary. And

however, the

fourth boundary he did not specify for him.

Rav said: He acquired everything except the fourth boundary.

The buyer acquired the entire field except for one strip along the fourth boundary. This applies specifically when this strip is distinguishable from the rest of the field, as it is not suitable for plowing and sowing, or it is a mound of stones, or a mound of earth, so that the field’s boundary there is discernible. The reason is that since he did not mention the fourth boundary, the matter is understood to mean that the seller intended to retain only a small portion of the field for himself.

And Shmuel said: Even the fourth boundary.

The buyer acquired this strip at the fourth boundary as well. The reason he did not mention the fourth boundary is that the seller thought there was no need to do so, since he had mentioned in the deed the boundaries of the three directions.

And Rav Asi said: He acquired only one furrow along its entire length.

One strip along all three boundaries—that is, he sold him only one strip, in the form of a het.

And the Gemara explains Rav Asi’s words:

He holds

Rav Asi

like Rav, who said that he retained a remainder.

From the fact that he did not mention the fourth boundary, it is evident that the seller intended to retain part of the field for himself.

And from the fact that he retained a remainder at the boundary, he likewise retained a remainder in all of it.

Rav Asi holds more than Rav. That is, just as Rav says that the seller intended to retain one strip along the boundary for himself, so Rav Asi holds that he intended to retain a strip throughout the entire field, except for one strip opposite the three directions, since he mentioned three boundaries in the deed.

Rava said: The halakha is: He acquired everything except the fourth boundary.

That is, he ruled that the halakha follows Rav.

And we said this

that we do not say that he did not acquire the fourth boundary

only when it is not enclosed,

in a manner in which the strip at the fourth boundary, which is distinguishable from the rest of the field, is not enclosed within the two boundaries, on this side and on that side, which he mentioned in the deed, but rather the boundary extends along both of them. [See Illustration 11 from “Living Commentary”]

Illustration 11

But when it is enclosed,

when the fourth boundary is enclosed between the two of them,

he acquired

the entire field, including the strip at the fourth boundary.

And when it is not enclosed,

when the strip at the fourth boundary is not enclosed between the two boundaries,

we likewise said

that he did not acquire the strip at the fourth boundary

only

in two circumstances: the first is

when there is upon it a cluster of date palms,

when there are date palms planted in this strip, entangled with one another—that is, the date palms grow densely—and they are a significant matter.

Or

when it is nine kav,

when the area of the boundary is nine kav, approximately sixty-one cubits by sixty-one cubits, which is the measure of a field, as explained above [11a], and it is an important area in its own right and is not nullified as an adjunct to the field; therefore it is not sold together with the field.

But when there is no cluster of date palms upon it,

when there is no arrangement of date palms upon it, and also

when it is not nine kav,

it is not an important area in its own right; therefore

he acquired

it even when it is not enclosed between the two boundaries.

And the Gemara infers:

by implication

you learn this:

that when it is enclosed, even though there is upon it a cluster of date palms and it is nine kav, he acquired it.

When it is enclosed, then even if it is an important area, with a cluster of date palms upon it or an area of nine kav, nevertheless he acquired it, since it is only when it is not enclosed that Rava distinguishes between whether it is an important area or not; and it follows that when it is enclosed, he acquired it in every case.

There are those who say: Rava said,

there are those who state in Rava’s name that he said it in another formulation:

The halakha is: He acquired everything, even the fourth boundary.

And we said this

that he acquired everything

only when it is enclosed,

when the fourth boundary is enclosed between the two boundaries,

but when it is not enclosed, he does not acquire it,

when it is not enclosed, he does not acquire the fourth boundary.

And even when it is enclosed, we said

that he acquired everything

only when there is no cluster of date palms upon it and it is not nine kav,

for it is not an important area in its own right, and therefore, when enclosed, it is acquired as an adjunct to the field.

But when there is a cluster of date palms upon it,

when there is an arrangement of date palms upon it, or

when it is nine kav,

when it is an area of nine kav,

he did not acquire

the strip at the fourth boundary.

And the Gemara infers:

by implication

you learn this:

that when it is not enclosed

the fourth boundary

, even though there is no cluster of date palms upon it and it is not nine kav,

so that it is not an important area,

he does not acquire it.

And the Gemara concludes:

We learn from both formulations of Rava,

we learn from Rava’s two formulations:

a.

In the field

itself,

he retained nothing at all.

He did not leave anything for himself within the body of the field.

b.

And we also learn that wherever it is enclosed, and there is no cluster of date palms upon it and it is not nine kav,

when there are two advantages: a. the fourth boundary is enclosed; b. there are no date palms upon it and it is not nine kav,

he acquired it.

According to both formulations.

c.

When it is not enclosed and there is a cluster of date palms upon it and it is nine kav,

when there are two disadvantages: a. it is not enclosed; b. there are date palms upon it or it is an area of nine kav,

he did not acquire it.

According to both formulations.

d. But if

it is enclosed, and there is something upon it,

when it is enclosed and there are date palms upon it or it is nine kav, so that it has the advantage that it is enclosed, and the disadvantage that it is an important area,

e.

or it is not enclosed, and there is nothing upon it,

when it is not enclosed and there are no date palms upon it and it is not nine kav, so that it likewise has the advantage that it is not an important area, and the disadvantage that it is not enclosed.

In the last two circumstances [d, e]

it was stated one way, and it was stated the other way,

they depend on Rava’s two formulations: according to the first formulation he acquired it, and according to the second formulation he did not acquire it.

And the Gemara rules:

the decision is according to the judges’ discretion.

The ruling in this matter depends on the judges’ assessment—that is, everything depends on the matter as the judge sees it, and on his recognizing whether the seller was generous in this sale or ungenerous. According to their assessment, they will rule whether he acquired it or not.

Rabba said:

Reuven and Shimon had a field in partnership, and Reuven sold his share to another person, and wrote for him: “

Half that I have in the land

[half that I have in the land], I sell to you.” We interpret his words as intending to sell him

half,

the entire half of the field that he had, and he did not retain anything for himself. For this is the meaning of his words: “The half of the field that I have—I sell to you.”

But if he wrote for him: “

Half in the land that I have

[half in the land that I have], I sell to you,” he intended to sell him only

a quarter,

a quarter of the entire field. For the meaning of his words is: “Half of the share that I have in this field I sell to you.” And since his share in the field is only half, it follows that he sold him a quarter.

Abaye said to him: What is the difference between this and that, and what is the difference between that and this?

What is the distinction between the two? For even in the second formulation, “Half in the land that I have,” it is possible to interpret his intention as: “The half of this land, which is my portion, I sell to you.”

He was silent,

Rabba was silent and did not answer him.

Abaye said: I thought that since he was silent, he accepted the ruling.

I thought that the reason he was silent was that he accepted my words.

But it is not so,

it is not so. For

I saw those deeds that emerged from my master’s house,

I saw the deeds that came out of my master’s house—that is, Rabba, who was Abaye’s teacher—

and it was written in them as follows:

“Half that I have in the land”—

half.

That is, in a deed whose beginning stated: “We are witnesses that so-and-so said to his fellow: ‘The half that I have in the field I sell to you,’” it was made clear at the end of the deed that he sold him half, for the end of such a deed stated: “And so-and-so acquired from so-and-so half the field.”

Whereas in a deed whose beginning stated: “We are witnesses that so-and-so said to his fellow: ‘I sell you

А если в начале документа было написано: «Мы свидетельствуем, что такой-то сказал своему товарищу: “Я продаю тебе

half in the land that I have,

half in the land that I have,’” the deed established at its end that he sold him only

a quarter,

a quarter of the entire field, for the end of the deed stated: “And so-and-so acquired from so-and-so a quarter of the field.”

And Rabba said:

Reuven had a field, and he sold part of it to Shimon—for example, the portion of the field on the western side—and retained for himself the portion on the east. But he did not specify in the deed how much area of the western side of the field he was selling to his fellow, nor how much he was retaining for himself on the eastern side of this field. Rather, he wrote only the boundaries of the field that he was coming to sell, and wrote as follows: “I hereby sell you a field whose western boundary is the field of a man named Levi, whereas its eastern boundary is

the boundary of the land from which half is divided,

that is, the boundary is the field remaining in my possession, from which the field that I am coming to sell you is divided”—

half!

We interpret his words to mean that he sold him half the field, since the language he wrote, that this field is “divided” from his field, implies that they are divided equally into halves.

But if he wrote

“the boundary of the land from which a section is cut off,”

the eastern boundary is my field, from which the field that I am coming to sell you is cut off, he sold him only

nine kav.

For the meaning of this language is that he sold him a field in which nine kav can be sown, which is the minimum measure of a field, as mentioned above. Since the language “cut off” means a small portion cut off from a larger one, he therefore gives him only a small portion. However, less than nine kav is not called a field, and since he mentioned the language “field,” he must necessarily have sold him an area of nine kav.

Abaye said to him: What is the difference between this and that, and what is the difference between that and this!?

What is the distinction between the two, since the language “cut off” likewise implies the same as the language “divided”?

He was silent

Rabba.

They thought from this,

the students understood from Abaye’s words:

in both cases, half,

in both circumstances the buyer receives half.